by Ashley Steed~

On Sunday, the last day of the inaugural Hollywood Fringe Festival, LATR hosted a critics panel with Don Shirley from LA Stage Blog (which I also write for), Harvey Perr from Stage and Cinema, Collin Mitchell and Enci from Bitter Lemons, Steven Leigh Morris from LA Weekly, and our very own editor-in-chief Geoff Hoff. Moderated by Kat Primeau, this panel discussed criticism, LA theatre and the lasting impact of the Hollywood Fringe.

The first topic was the critic’s role and responsibility.

Hoff, who is also a best selling author, began by saying the role of the critic is two-fold. “First, the critic’s role is to support the arts. Second is to get a conversation going.”

Award-winning playwright Perr likes to call himself a reviewer. It’s about relating the art form to the community. Reviewing is “a personal vision,” he said, “just as personal as it is for the artist.” He also stressed the importance of honesty.

For Morris, who is also a playwright, the role of the critic is to see theatre from a different angel. “It’s our job to help describe and define what’s going on.”

Long-time Los Angeles theatre critic Shirley added, “It’s important to see as many productions as possible. And to write in an informative, entertaining and,” echoing Perr, “honest way.”

Mitchell is a professional writer but he’s not a critic. His website Bitter Lemons doesn’t review theatre, rather it compiles reviews and in turn reviews the critics themselves. He said, “I raise questions…I make sure the critics feet are held to the fire.” Most would agree that critics need to be held accountable.

Which prompted Primeau to bring up theatre producer Rick Culbertson’s blog post about the critic-actor hyphenate-problem. (It’s an interesting read, especially the sparring between Culbertson and Steven Leigh Morris.)

To quickly state Culbertson’s argument, he believes that one can either be a critic or an actor, not both. This makes me think of a quote from my all-time favorite movie All About Eve where Addison DeWitt (the actual fictional character, not LATR’s fictional commentator) introduces himself in the opening narration: “My native habitat is the theater. In it, I toil not, neither do I spin. I am a critic and commentator. I am essential to the theater.” Personally, I do believe these types of critics are essential. However, I also think the critiques by those who toil and spin are just as vital. Here’s what the panel had to say.

“My love is the theatre,” declared Perr. Having not read the Culbertson’s blog post, he offered his personal experiences. “I can’t afford theatre,” he laughed, “so I review it.” He did admit, though, “I can’t understand how some reviewers get their jobs at all. There are some who just encourage bad theatre, making it get worse.” So how can one tell if a critic is reliable? “The quality of writing,” replied Perr. “You can always tell who knows what they’re talking about, and who doesn’t.”

As mentioned above, Morris and Culbertson had a virtual debate over this issue. For the panel he remained relatively quite on the subject. He did add, however, “the way to get your chops [as a critic] is actually working in theatre.”

Primeau, an actor-critic hyphenate herself, agreed. “I constantly read reviews to understand the language of theatre.” However, she admitted her hyphenate status is worrisome.

Criticism should be egalitarian, Mitchell said. It’s important “to get views from all over.” However, there is “a natural evolution. You don’t want to mingle with the people you’re telling off.”

Perr said he’s never simultaneously working in theatre and as a critic. It’s either one or the other.

Quickly changing the subject to the impact of the Hollywood Fringe Festival Mitchell said, “LA is doing some of the best work in the country but there’s a lack of legitimization here.” He added that the HFF has increased awareness of LA theatre, “which is a good thing.” He then mentioned the need for an LA aesthetic. “We need to define our identity.” What’s our identity compared to New York, Chicago or even London?

Shirley interjected, when people think of these cities, “they don’t think of Fringe Festivals. They think of theatrical institutions.” Where were our theatre institutions? Why weren’t there more LA companies involved in HFF?

From the audience, David Elzer of DEMAND PRoductions gives a simple answer, “people didn’t know about it.” The overall consensus seemed to be that people know about it now and will participate next year.

Enci made a valid point that the live street performances and the Fringe participants taking it to the streets to advertise has brought awareness to those outside the Los Angeles theatre community. We cannot underestimate the value of “getting the world out that there is theatre here.”

Agreeing, Hoff commended the fact that there even is a Fringe is a testament of LA Theatre. “There’s more theatre produced here then in New York or London.”

Sitting in the audience, Lee Melville, editor-in-chief of LA Stage added his thoughts of his HFF experience. “I’m excited by the quality of work I’ve seen.” Addressing Shirley’s question he said, “Next year, we need to get the rest of the [theatre] community involved.”

Morris believes that the direction of LA theatre is driven by two major factors. 1) The challenging economic climate. 2) The equity contract, which he said is a double-edged sword. “The Fringe has shown us what’s possible.” He elaborated, “that it’s economically feasible to use this city as an incubator of new work. That’s our definition,” referring to Mitchell’s previous statement. “We have the talent and economic circumstances whereas other cities have real restrictions. How can we capitalize on our resources? The purpose of the Fringe is defining what we’re capable of. Perhaps our purpose is as play developers.”

“It’s a dangerous road to be merely an incubator,” remarked Mitchell, “to do shows here just to take it somewhere else.”

The issue of professionalizing LA theatre came up which posed the question: what is the role or responsibility of the critic in the larger promotion of LA Theatre?

Immediately Hoff responded, “It’s about raising the bar. We [in Los Angeles] are absolutely capable of having high production values. It’s our job to point out where it’s happening and it’s not.”

This sparked an impromptu question from the audience: What are the criteria of a critic? What are the critic’s credentials?

Hoff stressed the importance of good writing.

Also, “an intense curiosity,” said Morris. “They should be educated in the theatre and have a love of the form.” He added, “and we are all entitled to our own opinion.”

Next question: What’s lacking in LA theatre? How do you see it evolving?

“Mid-size theatre don’t get enough respect,” asserted Shirley. Perr asked him which theatres he was talking about. Grinning, Shirley pulled out a list from his shirt pocket, “which theatres, you ask?” He went on to name LA theatres under equity contracts.

“What’s lacking is in the level of production value,” Hoff said. He wasn’t necessarily talking about money, but rather professionalism. “There’s no correlation between budget and production value. I’ve seen shows with low-budgets and have been blown away.”

Mitchell added, “innovation in marketing” as lacking. “We also need more actual producers.” Those who are focused on the business side of the art form. “And the 99-seat contract needs to be restructured.”

Offering advice to theatre practitioners, Morris stated, “know what you’re doing and have your goals realistically framed.” He also encouraged all theatre artists to get out and support each other’s work.

Adding to that, Perr said, “and we need theatres doing plays of importance.”

Using a gardening metaphor, Perr and Hoff discussed the unfortunate scenarios of when certain works have a lot of potential but are thrown out just when they are starting to sprout. They both urged the theatre community to give these young seedlings a chance to grow.

Perhaps the simplest and most profound way to aid in the evolution of LA theatre is to proudly “identify yourself as an LA theatre artist,” stressed Mitchell.

To the critics he said, “I challenge you to have one standard when reviewing shows in order to try to raise the quality of work to the highest standard possible.”

Going back to the impact of the Hollywood Fringe, Morris shared, “I feel something shifting and it’s very gratifying. There’s a sense of real change, of definition and purpose.”

Having been in LA since the early ’80s and seen many shifts in the theatre scene, Shirley was skeptical. He didn’t think that a non-curated festival was the answer to improving Los Angeles theatre.

Morris conceded the fact that “there will always be a strata made of dreadful theatre. It’s still here and not going away. Yet there’s a strata that makes excellent theatre and it is bubbling.”

He ended by understating the success of the inaugural Hollywood Fringe Festival: “You know, it sorta worked, which nothing works in this town,” he laughs. “We can use it as a beacon.”

Please share with us your thoughts on the state of theatre in LA. If you were at the critics panel we’d love to hear your reactions to the critics. For those of you who participated in the HFF, tell us your experience and whether or not you believe it’s made a lasting impact.